/lit/ - Literature

>>23504644
How about you just read Hegel, you fucking retarded philistine.

>>23504646
>>23504644
>I am currently working my way through PoS and EL1

>Pinkard's PoS commentary
>Hegel's Ladder
>Hegel's Development: Towards the Sunlight
>Lukacs' The Young Hegel

>>23504661
Oh, and Pinkard's Hegel biography is great too.
Here's a brief overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4t5YMgSnxY

>>23504661
>unironically recommends Lukacs
KWAP

>>23504670
yup, i know glowies aren't very big fans

PoS and EL reader here too. Read a bunch of secondaries. Here is some of my faves...

For just general info? Pinkard bio is one of most thorough in English. Pinkard and Beiser also have works on german idealism more generally. A bit dry but generally well researched.

Hermetic Hegel? >youwouldn'tgetit.jpg

Commentaries? Harris's Ladder is a great PoS walkthru. Realm of Shadows is great on the Logic additionally.

Analytic side of things; you can always read Brandom. But a bit of a reductionist. Or deflationist. Smthn like that. There's also Pippin. He's hit n miss. But I like his book on Desire.

Taylor as mentioned is fun if a bit conservative. Tons of Hegelian thoughts updates for our ultramodern age. Plus a catholic so a good ol boy.

If can stomach frogs:
Kojeve and Hyppolite for influence on pomos (optionally: bataille too)
Malabou is good for a response to pomos moreover

>what about Lacan?
Not so much a good secondary as the others
>what about Zizek?
Less than Nothing is his best work
>what about Badiou?
They don't want you to know but Theory of the Subject is his best

>>23504661
reading this right now
How Kantian Was Hegel?
Author(s): Terry Pinkard
Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Jun., 1990), pp. 831-838

>>23504644
Keep going, once you finish the Science of Logic you can go wherever you like. I think Rorty had a good line for this: "the left and right Hegelians already re-enacted Stalingrad" or something like that, may not be verbatim. The endless sequencing of organic evolution will be open to you.

>>23504711
>once you finish the Science of Logic you can go wherever you like
what are you posting about now?
how much /lit/ can you have without big book? how much can you have without look at forever vs keep checking

>>23504783
Hehehe, you're goddamn right kid, you PoS chads are my favorites.

>>23504822
ousia cannot be translated as two words

>>23504846
That sounds like something you are having an issue with. I suppose we can go with Hegel and reduce it all the way down to one word: thinking. Hegel also incorporated Epicurean notions, so in that sense all thinking is inductive, and we have sense-affirmation as well included in thinking.

>>23504899
No, you see, if you want to stop completely you have to determinately negate the principle. You are asking too much for a bunch of people who had no choice in the matter.

>>23504906
You were just telling me the Science of Logic was too big for you and that you didn't need any more books. Don't disappoint me now. Do you need assistance in finding your intermediate?

>>23504916
Science of Logic exists in 3 parts, the etymological construct that you can carry over a Greek unit of meaning to means all three is not the same as thought having a real quality that is always aesthetic. A permanent quantity of particular aesthetic, is still an infinite negation. you are right by virtue of a predication of what a nameless account is.

>>23504677
This is a helpful list, I'd add Kalkavage's Ladder of Desire as a a great grneral overview of the PoS, and both of Rosen's books (his general overview on Hegel, and his commentary on the SoL).

>>23504933
Unit of meaning, no choice in the matter, and aesthetic? An initial interest in the singularity of translation. Well, Hegel would probably have thought me insane, hopefully more in the toll variety, and since I am sort of a category-less nobody at the moment I don't want you to think I am on the low tier of understanding. It has been years since I read Aristotle and Heidegger, and I do smell some Kant. None of them would likely be interested in Hegel's signature process of remapping all thought. There is a chance I am talking to one of the Catholics here, and I already know we share a fascination with some of the wierder aspects of Logic, like can an omnipotent God create a boulder too heavy to lift, I do enjoy those sorts of mind benders, that is honestly why I love Science of Logic so much, you can stay lost in it forever and then Hegel also has finite infinities and all sorts of Logic gems stuffed throughout, and that doesn't even include his parts about polishing. Alright anon, I suppose at this point you wish to elucidate further?

What PoS translation are you using?

Pinkard's commentary and bio may be good, but it looks like Inwood's translation of PoS is better than Pinkard's...curious about the Fuss and Dobbins translation, if any anons have read it?

Where do you go after the Science of Logic?

>>23505480
Philosophy of Nature, presumably? It's a shame that of the system, the first and third parts are worked out quite a bit (Science of Logic, and the lectures on history, religion, aesthetics, the Philosophy of Right, and the Phenomenology), but the middle part is just whatever we have in the Encyclopedia.

>>23505118
The charge that something is just a logical game that does not resist the scrutiny of actual existence is as follows:
Is the the creation of God the only thing that exists?
If the actuality of our situation was to go back and forth without any measure of who was saying what, I would say God would create the object that talks about appearance as the ground of existence. The substantial existence of an apparent thing is a bit like the image of something being worth continuing for its own sake. The actual end of a thing is always to point to the initial choice. The primary element of an approach to truth molding it to certain likeness. The fertility of the idea is always for subject who is led to some specific experience
>>23505415
The Pinkard translation changes 'Lordship' to 'Mastery'

>>23505686
>The charge that something is just a logical game that does not resist [accepts] the scrutiny of actual existence is as follows: Is the the creation of God the only thing that exists [infinite regress] If the actuality of our situation was to go back and forth without any measure of who was saying what I would say God would [choice or no choice?] create the object that talks [removal of intrinsic humanity?] about appearance [sight confirmation only?] as the ground of existence. The substantial existence of an apparent thing is a bit like the image of something being worth continuing for its own sake [classical logic vs free logic?]. The actual end of a thing is always to point to the initial choice [choice confirmed over no choice] The primary element of an approach to truth molding it to certain likeness [no inherent truths?]. The fertility of the idea is always for subject who is led to some specific experience [do I smell a pragmatist?]

Well, I guess we have left Aristotle in the Algebra section. We are no longer negotiating meaning, so existentialist stuff has given way to either one of the resident analytics here, or maybe Pierce anon.
Analytic: Quine: Q: what exists? A: everything.
Wittgenstein: thank you for the tautological representation of your reality, I am obligated to say from a linguistic gaming perspective you may want to tighten up some of the gaps.
Russell: Meinong is a twat old chap, if you want to tell me there is a teapot circling Jupiter then you have to prove it, not me.
Kripke: if unicorns existed they would be their own species, sounds like you need a beer after a long day of thinking.
----------
I am scratching around in my Pierce folder, 'goodness' was something aesthetic and he delineated that was above logic and ethics, which leaves me puzzled about molding truth to a certain likeness. The pragmatists had some ideas about removing religion from God that I can appreciate, I try to avoid superstition myself. I have always been a fan of the whole think it into action sort of thing, and Epicureans are still in-tribe, if there is a god I have to believe it would be possible for me to kill it if I had to, or that it frankly has no concern or possibly even no knowledge of my existence, the remain anonymous maxim from the founder is always a good one to live by.
_____
If you are an analytic then you need to brush up on your continental, I had to learn all of your FLL's so at the very least you can put some more art into your responses, or you can use your FLL's, if I can understand and have a response you may very well get one from me.

Pierce anon, I am trying to get better about the A Priori method distinctions and pertinent time relevance considerations for all these philosophers, it could very well be a perpetual work in progress, if I haven't stopped in on any Pierce threads lately it is likely because we are either already in agreement or I do not know (I'm early/middle).

>>23505948
>If you are an analytic then you need to brush up on your continental,
I picture a barren, dry, uncaring landscape

>>23505948
>Well, I guess we have left Aristotle in the Algebra section.
I picture a redditor
>>23505948
>I am scratching around in my Pierce folder,
I picture chicken

>>23505955
So, are you a chicken guy or an egg guy?

>>23505970
you can't say the Vietnam war does NOT happen as a consequence of nuclear weapons, you can say the nuclear weapons are developed by someone else

ITT: fart-sniffing

>>23505978
Wars used to be real. Not real in the sense they actually happened, I mean they were fucking real baby. Total and immersive patriotism simulators carefully constructed by American Hegemony, the detailed cartographers of S-class skill, the map of which was disseminated to every nation state of the world to try and emulate. The problem was not so much the other cartographers but rather no other group of people in the world wanted to live in the hyperreal. God Bless the Americans, the most hyperreal people on the planet. You want to know how they did it? Less information, more meaning. That's the problem with these 'wars' nowadays that don't actually happen, too much information, no meaning. There were only 2 nuclear weapons ever made, they used up the sum total of viable nuclear material in the world and the hyperreal hyperbeans dropped them on Japan, supposedly. All of the ones made thereafter were empty casings with radioactive warning labels, a masterful work, a feat that rivaled the cartographers of old. The farcical droppings rendered for the world like some Hollywood setpiece, and the power of American Hegemony convinced the rest of the world to enter into these things called treaties over them, all the big players in the world agreed to only invade little nations from that point forward. Are nuclear weapons real, or just the by-product of oriental carpet salesmen?

>>23505995
why are you so insecure?

>>23504933
>the etymological construct that you can carry over a Greek unit of meaning to means all three is not the same as thought having a real quality that is always aesthetic
what the fuck are you yapping about bro

>>23505948
It's PEIRCE!
>Well, I guess we have left Aristotle in the Algebra section.
I don't know what you mean by this.

>>23506171
so you can't have this mean two things, basically meaning there is always something that will make this exist your this specifically will never exist

>>23506009
your point actually does not extend to be that long, you can talk about philosophy without any kind of actual person. I gave up once I realized that I can make as many threads as I want to in a sense, and maybe the thread I make further down the line won't be a Hegel thread

>>23506183
>so you can't have this mean two things, basically meaning there is always something that will make this exist your this specifically will never exist
what two things? I feel like you left out half the context.

>>23506211
Ousia is the Greek word for substance or essence, or maybe some other combination of words and meanings. For Hegel the essence of a thing is not singular but rather there is an essential element from which an appearance begins to exist and then as "a consequence" it is whittled down into an actuality built on a relationship between what is essential and what simply appears. When people say the mind is the essence of idealism, they are saying the mind is the unchanging element of legal dominion (judgment), not that mind expands to take up the most space.
A coherent logical whole for example, a syllogism, is something that makes a rational person see a specific thing. But alternatively the person could mistaken the sight of a syllogism for a kind of judgment. If the reason for the syllogism is the same as content of the syllogism you are saying that the thing is true when the syllogism is thought of.

>>23506178
My apologies frog, I am phoneposting and that was autocorrect and I wasn't paying attention. I will try to catch that in the future. If you are interested George Boole wrote a long essay/book on it, his books are excellent, yes, that is to say they turned Aristotle into Algebra.

>>23506183
I am trying to get better about maintaining ontological consistency to the specified philosopher

>>23506267
>Ousia is the Greek word for substance or essence
So, from what I understand, ousia is the Greek word for substance as Plato and Aristotle used it. And for essence, we either have some kind of "form" (idea/eidos/genos/etc.) for Plato, or that plus "einai" for Aristotle. But it's kind of convoluted (I made a thread about ousia vs. einai last week if you want to look it up on warosu).
>When people say the mind is the essence of idealism, they are saying the mind is the unchanging element of legal dominion (judgment), not that mind expands to take up the most space.
As in, there's more to idealism than the mind, but the mind is a primary engine or operator within idealism, right?

What you've given helps more, but I'm still confused by where you meant "this thing" and "this thing can't mean two things" and how Greek threeness comes into play.

>>23506287
I appreciate it. And thank you for reminding me of the connection to Boole.

>Philosophical Mysticism in Plato, Hegel and the Present, Wallace
>Mystical Sources of German & Romantic Philosophy, Benz
>Hegel's Development, Harris
>Hermetic Hegel, Magee
>Heterodox Hegel, O'Regan
>Studies in Hegelian Dialectic; Commentary on Hegel's Logic, Mctaggart
>The Idea of Hegel's Science of Logic, Rosen
>Hegel's Realm of HSadows, Pippin
>Intro to Hegel's Logic, Hartnak
>Logic of Desire, Intro to POS, Kalkavage
>Hegel & Christian Theology, Hodgeson

Taylor and Beiser are fine. There aren't necessarily any 'must read' secondary literature selections, but the above were helpful to read with (and against). thtj

>>23506339
You're welcome anon, I will also say I am a huge fan of the evolutionary considerations Peirce made to Boolean logic, and this is coming from a DeMorgan fan. I especially enjoy some of the more complex geometric representations, and this fixation is not simply one made of aesthetic consideration either, it is very easy to see why Peirce is still an ongoing subject of study.

I'm going along with Heidegger, Hyppolite, and Kojève
it is not making my life easier

Redpill me on Hegel

>>23507832
if you're not looking for absolute knowledge you ain't shit, effectively speaking